Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Recently I have noticed a significant, even unacceptable loss of sharpness in pictures that I resize for upload in CS2. So much so even that they seem sharp enough before, and clearly look soft after. Tonight it has stopped me from uploading a pic.
I don't understand where this problem has suddenly come from. I haven't changed any settings in my camera or in CS2, I haven't re-installed it - it's the same as it was before, as far as I know. I also haven't changed my processing procedure.
Does anyone have any ideas?
It's likely to be the effect of too much Pinot Grigio I'm afraid....... 
Could it be your monitor Conrad?
I'm a teetotaller, Barrie, so we'll discount the first possibility, I think. 
I also don't think it's my monitor. For several reasons - this is an example (see Cole's comment and my own), and tonight I was paying special attention to any loss of sharpness, and couldn't miss a serious loss of sharpness in the double view of the image you get when you're about to save it for the web: the upload version on the right was definitely soft in comparison with the original on the left, and I had never seen such a big difference before.
Do you get the same effect with an older published pic ?. "Golden Background" may be a good trial with the dogs whiskers as a baseline.
A more pertinent question maybe as to your method of resizing: nearest neighbour, bilinear, bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper, wild stab in the dark...?
As to your example, it is woefully unfocussed - how the heck did it garner fifty votes?
I'm not trying to revive a locked thread, I just would like to know what Conrad meant by;
Quote: 'kicking against the pricks'.
I have never seen that one before.
I'm sure it has a totally different meaning than it would over here.
Quote: I get it
Er, no, that's not it. Never mind. Thread was locked for a good reason.
To get back to the subject of this thread:
Quote: When you reduce the size you usually have to apply resharpening. Do you do this?
Yes, after going to EPZ upload size, I apply sharpening. And since that method hasn't changed, and neither have my CS2 settings, I can't figure out what's going wrong.
Quote: Hope the holiday in the UK was enjoyable Conrad
It was, Pete, thanks. Great holiday, and attending an official and an unofficial meet was a very nice bonus.
Quote: Do you get the same effect with an older published pic ?
Ah, good question. I'll have to get back to you on that.
Quote: A more pertinent question maybe as to your method of resizing: nearest neighbour, bilinear, bicubic, bicubic smoother, bicubic sharper, wild stab in the dark...?
I use bicubic. Would another method be preferable? If so, why didn't I have problems with this before?
Quote: As to your example, it is woefully unfocussed
I thought it looked different before I saved it for the web, actually. Unless I made a mistake and picked a neighbouring photo instead of the right one. Will have to go back and check that now. Worth looking into.
Quote: how the heck did it garner fifty votes?
I have no idea. I find it quite embarrassing to have that many votes on that pic, to be honest.
Quote: I find it quite embarrassing to have that many votes on that pic, to be honest
Some are vote chasers.
Sadly 
Just taken a look at it does look soft.
I would suspect that the amount of detail that you were trying to reduce to 400k was partially to blame.
I know sometimes that if I have an image with lots of feather detail the initial size in kb at 1000px can be somewhere in the region of 700, whereas the next image with bird smaller in frame and a completely diffused background when saved at 100% can struggle to get to 300kb.
There is/was/should be quite a lot of information/data to be saved because the rocks are covered in greenery. This will add to the original file size.
I would suspect that you are noticing a difference because of this style of image, I think comparing it with many uploads that I remember seeing from you (not going back through your portfolio now to check them all out) it probably contained a lot more initial data than most. Hence why you suddenly appear to see a change.
I would suggest trying to slightly increase the border width to reduce the initial image size, or just going with slightly less than 1000px, say 950px on the longest side.
Resize, then apply some extra sharpening. CulturedCanvas once suggested using Smart Sharpen in PS3/4 and I find this can be useful in circumstances like this. You could see if you can find his original thread, but it is basically create a duplicate layer - set blend to luminosity, apply smartsharpen - approx 80%, 0.5 I think he suggested or something like that, those are not the settings I use for nature, then use the opacity to reduce the effect to taste.
HTH
Oh and I agree with Cole, a little heavy on the RHS
TBH, Conrad, you have had that problem ages ago. I remember that Jacqueline helped you on the processing on those shots from Scotland and then it was fine.
So, why not let Jacqueline helps you again, then compare the results with your own. See what she does and what you do differently. Then hopefully you will know what's r not right.
Quote: I would suggest trying to slightly increase the border width to reduce the initial image size, or just going with slightly less than 1000px, say 950px on the longest side.
It's worse than you think, I went all the way down to 500 pix on the longest side, and the quality difference was still very obvious.
About the composition issue of the image I linked to: I tried quite a few different compositions, so there should be some more balanced ones too.
Actually, this particular image is a bit of a complex example, because after having had another look - and a second opinion from someone - I find that it has two problems: the saving for web problem mentioned here, and the focusing problem Boyd mentioned. So I did something wrong myself as well.
I like the Smart Sharpen idea, I'll give that a try.
Cole, the Scottish shot had different issues than this one, but having Jacqueline process my shots is always a good idea. Pity she doesn't always have the time...
Thanks for the help and ideas, everyone, I'll experiment a bit more and see if I can find a method that works.
Conrad.
For web images which need a touch more sharpening .. I resize to 1000 pixels, then duplicate the layer. Set the blending mode to luminosity so there's no colour shift, then smart sharpen. Around .5% and 100% on the 5D II with a decent lens is usualy about right. I sometimes need drop down a touch or go up where needed.
I then use a layer mask or erase away whatever doesnt need sharpning on that layer.
HTH.
Andy...
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top